Beware of the law when it comes to dangerous dogs

Campaigners say the Dangerous Dogs Act is 'irrational' and want the legislation to be changed. But how can the animals be protected while ensuring pet owners are held to account?
Rowenna Davis reports on a recent debate

Animals are being trained to fight, defend and impress, as owning a potentially lethal dog becomes linked to social standing. Photograph: David Sillitoe for the Guardian

Beware of the law when it comes to dangerous dogs

Campaigners say the Dangerous Dogs Act is 'irrational' and want the legislation to be changed. But how can the animals be protected while ensuring pet owners are held to account?
Rowenna Davis reports on a recent debate

Friday 30 September 2011 07.56 EDT
First published on Friday 30 September 2011 07.56 EDT

In a rare consensus among police, courts and charities, almost all experts agree that the current laws designed to deal with dangerous dogs should be scrapped. The legislation in mind is the 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act. Brought in quickly after a spate of attacks, it has been described as "knee jerk and reactionary" by a dog welfare charity.

The statistics seem to confirm the perceived shortcomings of the act: rates of dog attacks and dog seizures are on the rise; the Communications Workers Union estimates that 6,000 postal workers are attacked by dogs every year; and according to latest figures, the NHS is spending £2.7m annually treating victims of dog bites.

In the wake of this summer's riots, the problem of "status dogs" is also being linked to challenges in the country's inner cities. Animals are being trained to fight, defend and impress, as owning a potentially lethal dog becomes linked to security and social standing.

The suitability of the legislation to deal with such challenges was the topic of a recent roundtable debate, which was hosted by the Guardian and sponsored by Dogs Trust and the British Veterinary Association (BVA). The discussion was held under the Chatham House rule, which allows comments to be reported without attribution to encourage a frank debate.

"It's not worth the paper it's written on," said one participant, kickstarting the discussion in no uncertain terms. "It's hurriedly produced, it fails to make people safe, it blames the dog but asks the owner to do nothing, it takes up useful resources and it's detrimental to animal welfare. I've lost track of the number of times I've raised these issues with ministers. Something needs to be done."

In particular, campaigners dislike section one of the act, which outlaws certain breeds, such as pit bull terriers, and calls for them to be destroyed. "Banning breeds inevitably makes them more desirable for the wrong kind of person," said one contributor. "Pit bulls and Staffie crosses are now so common that people are inevitably moving on to the next thing – huskies, molosos, presca canarios. We can't add every dog to a banned list. We need to look at why people are getting these dogs."

Outlawed breeds

There is also the major issue of animal welfare. Hundreds of dogs have been put down under section one of the act – not because they have any record of wrongdoing, but simply because their breed is outlawed. The cost of this is enormous. According to a debate in the Lords, the Metropolitan police has spent £3m in 10 years trying to kennel dogs that are thought to be pit bulls. Nor is there any room for discretion, the roundtable was told: any officer who fails to take action against a suspected illegal breed can be punished for aiding and abetting. If the dog doesn't go, the officer will.

Another problem with the 1991 act is that it doesn't apply on private property. No matter how irresponsible the dog owner, they can only be prosecuted if the attack happens on public land. This is particularly difficult for postal workers who are legally obliged to deliver mail to every home in the country, as well as midwives and other public servants.

One contributor remembered a colleague falling victim with no recourse to justice. "He was attacked by two dogs, and it carried on for 20 minutes. He was left severely disabled for life. It wasn't tested whether it occurred on public or private land. In the end it was thrown out of court and no charges were brought."

In another odd legal twist, the only legislation that can be used to seek redress in cases such as these – and in dog-on-dog attacks – dates from 1871. This legislation can force dogs that perpetrate attacks on private property to be destroyed but, because it is not a criminal law, there is still no recourse against the owner. The fact that there is no requirement for dog owners to take out insurance means that even if a prosecution is obtained, there may be no resources available to compensate victims.

Campaigners are pushing for alternatives. They want the law to be extended to private property under a new principle. Under the banner "deed not breed", they argue that dogs should be punished on the basis of their behaviour, not their type. Most people who deal with dogs seem to agree. Eighty-eight per cent of people responding to government consultation said that they didn't think that breed-specific legislation was effective at keeping the public safe.

In March 2010, the home secretary at the time, Alan Johnson, launched a consultation on the back of campaigning efforts. It received 4,250 responses, but participants are still waiting for a formal response from the present government. David Cameron has promised to deal with the issue, but exactly how remains unanswered. It doesn't help that the issue falls between Defra – the department for the environment – and the Home Office.

One contributor to the roundtable was pessimistic over the prospect of government action: "The signals are coming out quite clearly. It [dangerous dogs legislation] is likely to be added to antisocial behaviour legislation, a Cinderella policy that could be rolled into a whole raft of other issues, and could take years to implement... It's a sign of political timidity on behalf of the government."

But politicians remain wary of relaxing the law when certain breeds are still perceived as dangerous and strike fear on the streets, the roundtable heard. Other organisations, including the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), remain committed to the ban, not necessarily because dogs like pit bulls are intrinsically designed to attack but because, if they do turn violent, the damage they can inflict is disproportionately bad.

Some authorities are sick of waiting for Westminster to act. The roundtable was told of one borough in south London where all council tenants who own a dog are required to register their pet with the council and have it microchipped, or they risk eviction. Since the free microchipping service was introduced in 2009, 4,000 dogs have been registered and the council says the scheme encourages parents of young dog-owners to take responsibility for their children's pets. Although no tenants have been evicted so far – and authorities insist that it's "an absolute last resort" – there are currently two residents who are refusing to comply.

Such regulation has won high-profile support. Dogs Trust has started the Microchipping Alliance, bringing together a number of welfare charities, veterinary organisations and dog wardens to speak with one voice on this issue. They argue that microchipping is minimal to the lifetime cost of owning a dog – it costs between £5 and £30 – and saves local authorities money on kennelling stray dogs. It is already massively popular on the continent, with nearly half of all EU countries now electronically identifying dogs.

However, one participant said that microchipping ran the risk of "criminalising 2 million dog owners" for simply failing to comply. But it was pointed out that microchipping is part of responsible dog ownership, and also that, as a one-off cost that benefits the owner, it is a better alternative to the dog licence, which some would like to see brought back.

Part of the problem is that microchips can only do so much to help and will not solve the underlying social causes, the debate heard. Status dogs often appear in some of the poorest parts of the country's inner cities. Dogs might be bred and sold for much-needed income or walked on the street for protection.

There was a consensus at the roundtable that any policy on dogs must be seen in context and introduced in partnership with supporting social agencies, with an emphasis on education and prevention. As one contributor put it: "What do you tell a kid who looks to their dog to protect them in a knife fight? How do you make a microchip sexy? We have to figure out how to connect." One solution, it was suggested, is to invest more time and resources into engaging with disadvantaged status-dog owners, through projects such as the advice service City Dogs.

Implementation and enforcement are also key issues, and one participant called for any new legislation to be made a "statutory duty" for local authorities. This would certainly help the inconsistency under the present system. Dealing with dangerous dogs might be a priority for some councils but others, such as Bedfordshire, don't even have a dedicated officer on the case, the roundtable was told. Without ringfenced budgets, campaigners are worried that dog wardens will be some of the first to go when local authorities make cuts.

But there are no signs of them giving up. In the past, the roundtable heard, there has been a concern that campaigners have been divided. Now they are coming together. Believing they now have highprofile political backing, they are turning their attention to letter-writing campaigns, social-networking projects and alliances are growing. As one participant put it, the aim is to "light as many fires under as many places as possible".

In focus

There is a consensus that the Dangerous Dogs Act of 1991 is in need of reform. It is considered unsafe, inefficient and detrimental to animal welfare. Campaigners want to extend the act to cover private property. At present, owners can only be prosecuted if attacks occur on public land. Most campaigners want to see dog owners prosecuted for their pets' behaviour rather than their type. This is known as the "deed not breed" principle. It's more controversial than the extension of the law to private property.

Most feel microchipping could be a good way to encourage responsibility, although there are concerns about liberty. Issues around education, prevention, implementation and resources also need to be discussed.

This roundtable report was commissioned by Seven Plus and controlled by the Guardian. The discussion was hosted to a brief agreed with, and paid for, by Dogs Trust and BVA. Contact Wendy Miller on 020-3353 2347. For information on roundtables visit: theguardian.com/sponsored-content